ECC performance cost on digital signature verification
operations. Thus the ECC promoters have an in interest in the underlying
expert community wisdom.
-- Thierry Moreau
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
to the application developer. Inside the box, a filter for
queries could be seen by some as a barrier to IPv6 migration (being
application by application).
Just my very casual observation of the source of useless queries.
Regards,
--
- Thierry Moreau
CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de
an observation on the above reasoning. A full pros and cons
analysis is obviously more encompassing.
Regards,
--
- Thierry Moreau
CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de Montgolfier
Montreal, QC, Canada H2M 2A1
Tel. +1-514-385-5691
___
DNSOP
mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Regards,
--
- Thierry Moreau
CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de Montgolfier
Montreal, QC, Canada H2M 2A1
Tel. +1-514-385-5691
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
.
Regards,
- Thierry Moreau
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https
to brute force cryptanalysis.
Regards,
- Thierry Moreau
Joe
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman
turnover times? Maybe I
missed something and a specifications document somewhere prevents short
RSA signature keys, I which case I apologize in advance for the noise on
this mailing list.
Regards,
- Thierry Moreau
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP
neither
completely solve the problem, as there is, inescapably, a catastrophic
failure mode (apparent in RFC5011 when one works out the implementation
options). But this seems off-topic until someone says otherwise.
Joe
- Thierry Moreau
___
DNSOP
Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jun 6, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Thierry Moreau wrote:
Blindly following the above ideology will result in less and less RFCs,
hence less network standardization and/or standardization made by
entities other than the IETF.
Actually, what would result in fewer and fewer RFCs
Paul Wouters wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Thierry Moreau wrote:
By the way, does IETF dnsop need to discuss a consensus-based DNSSEC root
priming specification? I whish an open discussion is possible.
You can't have the cake and eat it too. An open discussion seems
impossible if one
,
--
- Thierry Moreau
CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de Montgolfier
Montreal, Qc
Canada H2M 2A1
Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax: (514)385-5900
web site: http://www.connotech.com
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
So, if you've filed an IPR disclosure, please let's hear about it
It's done. See
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?ipr_id=856
Regards,
--
- Thierry Moreau
CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de Montgolfier
Montreal, Qc
Canada H2M
that Mr. Paul
Vixie is perhaps counter-productive given the simple need for a
consensus-based DNSSEC root priming specification.
Regards,
--
- Thierry Moreau
CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de Montgolfier
Montreal, Qc
Canada H2M 2A1
Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax: (514)385-5900
web site
william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Thierry Moreau wrote:
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
So, if you've filed an IPR disclosure, please let's hear about it
It's done. See
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?ipr_id=856
Can there be a clarification
-announced IPR disclosure is to make resolver free license for
DNSSEC root priming purposes, so the IPR wording would be adjusted
accordingly.
Do you see the priming draft scope to cover anything beyond priming the
DNS root? I didn't read anything in this direction.
Regards,
--
- Thierry Moreau
issue,
at least in the above elusive circumstances and under the above terms. I
thus respectfully ask the dnsop wg chair to either point to the wg
rule(s) under which he believes to have sufficient authority, or cancel
the above directive.
Regards,
--
- Thierry Moreau
CONNOTECH Experts-conseils
to all, indeeed I did copy the original message to the
dnsop list.
My real point, of course, is that it doesn't matter.
I agree on this point.
Regards,
--
- Thierry Moreau
CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de Montgolfier
Montreal, Qc
Canada H2M 2A1
Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax: (514
present in the DNSKEY RRsets present at both ROOT-SERVERS.NET and
the root, provided that the DNSKEY RRset present at ROOT-SERVERS.NET is
not self-signed by this common signature key value.
Thanks for this work, and best regards,
--
- Thierry Moreau
CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de
-00.txt
Regards,
--
- Thierry Moreau
CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de Montgolfier
Montreal, Qc
Canada H2M 2A1
Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax: (514)385-5900
web site: http://www.connotech.com
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
DNSOP mailing
service
documentation. I couldn't easily figure out how to configure either the
stub resolver, or the default application use of it, in this Linux box.
No time to investigate any further.
That's it.
Best regards.
--
- Thierry Moreau
___
DNSOP
20 matches
Mail list logo
